Chernyshevsky critical articles. Chernyshevsky Nikolai Gavrilovich - literary critic, prose writer, philosopher

Prominent figures in journalism of the 19th century are N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov. They collaborated in the Sovremennik magazine. The basis of the journalism of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov is high ideology, great dynamism, the desire to faithfully serve the homeland, and genuine patriotism. These traits had their source in the work of Belinsky, on whose ideas they were brought up.

Chernyshevsky immediately became one of the main employees of Sovremennik. In 1854, he was published in almost every issue of the magazine and published up to twenty reviews, an article “On Sincerity in Criticism” and two reviews “Foreign News”.

With utmost clarity, Chernyshevsky expressed his convictions in a review of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Poverty is not a vice.” As is known, in this play Ostrovsky paid a certain tribute to the idealization of patriarchal merchant life, for which he was proclaimed by A. Grigoriev “the herald of the new truth.” Chernyshevsky in his review sharply criticized both the “apotheosis of ancient life”, the Slavophile ideas of A. Grigoriev, and the weaknesses of Ostrovsky’s play.

His articles and reviews were distinguished by amazing erudition, depth of thought, adherence to principles and, most importantly, consistent and militant democratic direction. Naturally, they immediately attracted attacks from hostile critics.

In the sixth issue of Otechestvennye Zapiski for 1854, an anonymous article was published, which stated that Chernysh’s critical reviews were unfair, unacceptably harsh, irreconcilable in tone and contradicted the previous opinions of the magazine. Chernyshevsky responded to Otechestvennye Zapiski with a long article “On Sincerity in Criticism,” in which he developed his views on the tasks of advanced literary criticism and dealt a crushing blow to unprincipled and evasive criticism.

The leaders of the magazine - Nekrasov and Panaev - supported Chernyshevsky's speeches, seeing in him and in Dobrolyubov, who came to the magazine later, worthy successors of Belinsky's great work.

Disagreements within the editors of Sovremennik intensified in 1855 after the publication of Chernyshevsky’s dissertation “Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality.” The author's starting point was the idea of ​​beauty as an expression of the life ideal. he argued that art has its origins in it, therefore beauty must be sought in life, and not in the other world, the main task of art is to serve the needs of society, to reflect and explain life.

“Essays on the Gogol Period” is the largest work of Chernyshevsky the critic. It was published in the magazine from the end of 1855 throughout 1856. Based on a materialistic understanding of art, Chernyshevsky highlighted in his work the main problems of Russian literature, socio-political thought and journalism of the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. At the center of the “Essays” is the defense of Belinsky’s ideas, restoration and further development his principles, the approval of Gogol’s work, the defeat of the theory of “pure art”. In the final chapters of the Essays, he emphasized that, considering the ideas of Belinsky and Gogol to be the most important for the 60s, criticism must take a new step in its development.

“Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” is the first book on the history of Russian socio-political thought, on the history of Russian journalism of the 30-40s of the 19th century, and it continues to retain its significance to this day.

Chernyshevsky's polemics with liberals on basic issues of literature continued at the beginning of 1857. His main opponents were Druzhinin and the “Library for Reading”. In his review of Pisemsky's peasant stories, Druzhinin continued to criticize Belinsky, arguing that he set only didactic goals for literature, that criticism of the 40s called on writers to denigrate reality. In his review of the same stories, Chernyshevsky refuted all the main provisions of Druzhinin. Criticism of the Gogol period, he says, always “drove didactics out of art” and opposed intentionality in poetry.

First article Dobrolyubova“Interlocutor for lovers of the Russian word”, signed with the pseudonym “N. Laibov" was published in the August book of Sovremennik for 1856.

In the article “Interlocutor of lovers of the Russian word,” Dobrolyubov ridiculed the “bibliographic” direction of bourgeois-liberal criticism and explained how the role of the critic should be understood. In his opinion, while giving “a true, complete, comprehensive assessment of a writer or work,” a critic at the same time must pronounce “a new word in science or art.

From the end of 1857, Dobrolyubov became a permanent employee of the Sovremennik editorial board - head of the literary-critical (bibliographic) department. Since 1858, Dobrolyubov became one of the editors of the magazine along with Nekrasov and Chernyshevsky.

The arrival of Dobrolyubov immediately affected the political direction of the magazine. Now it was possible to clearly implement guidance in three main sections: criticism - Dobrolyubov, journalism - Chernyshevsky, fiction - Nekrasov.

Much in the journalism of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov - not only in content, but also in the form in which it was embodied - comes directly from Belinsky. This is tendentiousness in defending vital problems, the desire to deeply study what you write about, the greatest passion, intransigence, and courage in the fight against ideological opponents. They were distinguished by such qualities as the desire for a deep analysis of ongoing processes, the ability to find main problem and making it the center of reasoning, the art of thinking dialectically.

The manner of journalistic writing of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov - outstanding writers, publicists, critics - was different in many ways. In the articles of Chernyshevsky, who had to write most of all on problems of philosophy, political economy, and sociology, one can find, in our today's opinion, excessively lengthy reasoning, “extended” presentation.

Dobrolyub-satirist: A major role in solving the problems posed by revolutionary democrats in the 60s was played by the satirical department of Sovremennik - “Whistle”. Its creator was Dobrolyubov.

While still a student, in 1855, he published a handwritten newspaper “Rumors”. Dobrolyubov's first article in Sovremennik - "Interlocutor of lovers of the Russian word" - was devoted to the problems of satire and satirical journalism in the 18th century. Considerations about the tasks of revolutionary-democratic satire expressed by Dobrolyubov formed the basis of the plan of the satirical department of the Sovremennik magazine - "Whistle".

A total of nine issues of “Whistle” were published. His main collaborator was Dobrolyubov; Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, as well as the brothers A. M. and V. M. Zhemchuzhnikov and A. K. Tolstoy, who performed collectively under the name of Kozma Prutkov, took part in the department.

Dobrolyubov saw the tasks of the future publication as using laughter to pursue “evil and untruth.” They were not allowed to publish a satirical newspaper. Then the editors of Sovremennik decided to publish satirical materials in the magazine as they accumulated.

In its ideological content, “Whistle” was closely connected with the journalism of “Sovremennik”. Feuilletons, satirical couplets, and poetic parodies of “The Whistle,” marked by real political urgency, were devoted to topical issues. The main ones were: the fight against liberalism, criticism of the socio-political system of Russia, ridicule of the “pure poetry” of the nobility.

All of Dobrolyubov’s speeches in “Whistle,” directed against accusatory literature, were signed with the pseudonym “Konrad Lilienschwager.” It was not only a pseudonym, but also the image of a limited and enthusiastic liberal - a minister of accusatory poetry.

The second cycle created by Dobrolyubov for “Whistle” is poems by Yakov Ham. In these parodies of reactionary poets, Dobrolyubov created a new literary mask. Yakov Kham - a name formed from the rearrangement of syllables in Khomyakov's surname - according to the satirist, a poet-monarchist, an unprincipled person who does not have to change his views depending on the course of political events. The satirical meaning of the poems was especially emphasized by the fact that they were published as translations from the non-existent “Austrian language”.

In “Whistle,” as in the magazine’s journalism, Austria served as a code for Russia, and the “poems of Yakov Ham” were perceived as a damning exposure of the tsarist autocracy and the entire socio-political system.

The third literary mask created by Dobrolyubov is Apollo Kapelkin, “a young talent who promises to absorb all modern poetry.” Kapelkin’s poems are a cycle of witty and evil parodies of works of so-called “pure” poetry, chauvinistic odes, etc. Here, “First Love” is a parody of Fet’s poem “Whisper, timid breathing ...”, and “Public Figure “- a poem, evil, ridiculing the sublime impulses of a liberal, which are enough only to raise a glass of champagne to “the health of the poor man suffering there!”, and other poems.

Chernyshevsky also took part in “Whistle” (two feuilletons - “The Experience of Discoveries and Inventions” and “Marquis de Bezobrazov”

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky

Pushkin's works, annexes of materials for his biography, portrait, photographs from his handwriting and his drawings, etc. Published by P. V. Annenkov. St. Petersburg 1855

The impatient expectation, the urgent need of the Russian public, is finally satisfied. The first two volumes of a new edition of the works of our great poet have been published; the remaining volumes will soon follow.

The beginning of 1855 was marked by events that were joyful for all educated people of the Russian land: in one capital - the anniversary of Moscow University, which participated so much in the spread of education and contributed so much to the development of science in Russia; in another capital - a worthy publication of the works of a great writer who had such an influence on the education of the entire Russian public - what a celebration for Russian science and literature!

Fully understanding the importance of such an event as the publication of Pushkin’s works, we hasten to report to the public about it.

We will not talk about the significance of Pushkin in the history of our social development and our literature; Nor will we consider the essential qualities of his works from an aesthetic point of view. As far as possible for the present time, the historical significance of Pushkin and the artistic merit of his creations have already been appreciated by both the public and critics. It will be years before other literary phenomena change the public's real understanding of a poet who will forever remain great. Therefore, years will pass before criticism will be able to say anything new about his creations. We can now only study the personality and activities of Pushkin on the basis of the data presented by the new publication.

We will not pay attention to the inevitable shortcomings of the new edition. We can only talk about what the publisher gives us, and to what extent he satisfactorily fulfills what he could perform.

So, first of all, let's talk about the system and boundaries of the new edition.

It was based on the posthumous publication of “Works of Alexander Pushkin” in 11 volumes. But this posthumous edition, as we know, was done carelessly, according to a bad system, with omissions of many works, with errors in the text, with an arbitrary and often erroneous arrangement of works according to headings, which only complicated the study of both the works themselves and gradual development genius Pushkin. Therefore, Mr. Annenkov’s duty was to correct shortcomings in the new edition. He talks about it this way:

The first concern of the new edition was to correct the text of the previous edition; but this, due to the importance of the task, could not happen otherwise than with the presentation of evidence for the right of amendment or change. Hence the system of notes included in this edition. Each of the poet’s works, without exception, is provided with an indication of where it first appeared, what versions it received in other editions during the poet’s lifetime, and in what relationship the text of the new edition stands with the text of these editions. The reader, therefore, has, if possible, a history of external and, partly, internal changes received in different eras by each work, and from it can correct the oversights of the posthumous edition, the most striking of which have already been corrected by the publisher of the proposed collected works of Pushkin. Many of the poet's poems and articles (especially those that appeared in print after his death) are collated with manuscripts and the author's numerical notes, his first thoughts and intentions are indicated on them. (Preface to Volume II).

The correction of the text was followed by its addition: the publisher took advantage of all the instructions about the works of Pushkin that had ever been published that were missing in the posthumous edition, reviewed all the almanacs and magazines in which Pushkin published his poems and articles: but this was not the only addition: all the papers were placed at the disposal of the publisher , left after Pushkin, and he extracted from them everything that still remained unknown to the public. Finally, to the bibliographical notes and variants that we discussed above, he added, wherever he could, an explanation of the cases and reasons for which the famous work was written.

Instead of the previous confused and arbitrary division into small and imprecise headings, which constituted one of the significant shortcomings of the posthumous edition, he adopted a strict chronological order, with the distribution of works into a few departments, which are accepted in all the best European editions of classical writers and are indicated by convenience for readers and aesthetic concepts and the essence of the matter:

I. Poems. The first section is lyrical, the second section is epic, the third section is dramatic works.

II. Prose. Section one - Notes of Pushkin: a) Genealogy of the Pushkins and Hannibalovs; b) Remains of Pushkin’s notes in the strict sense (autobiographical); c) Thoughts and comments; d) Critical notes; f) Anecdotes collected by Pushkin; f) Travel to Arzrum. Section two - novels and stories (here also includes “Scenes from Knightly Times”). Section three - journal articles published in posthumous editions and published in magazines, but not included in the posthumous edition (eleven articles). Section four - History of the Pugachev rebellion with appendices and an anti-critical article about this work that was not included in the posthumous edition.

Then (says the publisher) many passages, both poetic and prose, a number of small plays and continuations or additions of his works were found in Pushkin’s manuscripts. All these remains are placed in the “Materials for the biography of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin” and in the appendices to them.

Having thus explained the order and system underlying the new collection, the publisher does not at all hide from himself that there will still be many omissions and oversights, both in the notes and in other respects. With all this, the publisher dares to cherish the hope that with the system adopted for the new edition, any correction by knowledgeable and well-intentioned criticism can be applied to the case sooner than before. The arena for bibliographical, philological and historical criticism is open. The common action of experienced and conscientious people will speed up the time of publication of the works of our people's writer in a completely satisfactory manner. (Preface to Volume II.)

Criticism of the new edition must agree with this modest and impartial assessment of it, given by the publisher himself. It is the best edition that could be made at the present time; its shortcomings are inevitable, its advantages are enormous, and the entire Russian public will be grateful to the publisher for them.

Of the first two volumes of the new edition published, the first contains “Materials for the biography of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin with his portrait (engraved by Utkin in 1838) and the following appendices: 1) Genealogy of A. S. Pushkin; 2) Fairy tales (three) of Arina Rodionovna, recorded by Pushkin; 3) French letters (two) from Pushkin regarding “Boris Godunov”; 4) and 5) The last minutes of Pushkin, described by Zhukovsky, and an extract from the biography of Pushkin compiled by Mr. Bantysh-Kamensky; 6) Pushkin’s translation of Ariostov’s XXIII song “Orlando Furioso” (stanzas 100–112); 7) Additional octaves for the story “House in Kolomna” (15 octaves); 8) Continuation of the story “Roslavlev”; 9) Comments on the Tale of Igor's Campaign. The second, third, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth appendices are in print for the first time. Finally, seven facsimile of Pushkin are attached to this volume: 1) His handwriting in 1815, 2) his handwriting in 1821, 3) a sheet of paper from a notebook containing the first original of “Poltava”, 4) the same sheet of paper, completely rewritten, 5) a drawing from the last page of the fairy tale: “The Merchant Dungeon”, 6) a drawing made by Pushkin for the story “The House in Kolomna”, 7) a draft title page for dramas and dramatic passages. These pictures are beautifully done.

Composition

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) began his critical activity by presenting his holistic theory of art and historical and literary concept. In 1853 he wrote, and in 1855 he defended and published his master's thesis “Aesthetic relations of art to reality.” In 1855-1856, he published “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” on the pages of Sovremennik. This essay was supposed to be in two parts, and a significant place in it should have been taken by the characteristics of the literary movement of the 30-50s. But Chernyshevsky managed to create only the first part, dedicated to the history of criticism of the “Gogol period”; in passing discussions he also touched upon works of art this period.

In the article “On Sincerity in Criticism” (1854) and some other works, Chernyshevsky outlined his critical code, continuing Belinsky’s “Speech on Criticism”: he ridiculed “evasive” criticism and developed his understanding of “direct”, principled, highly ideological, progressive criticism. Chernyshevsky also acted as a critic of the current modern literature. But, having made a number of remarkable successes in this area, among which the greatest was the discovery of L. Tolstoy as a writer, he took up other economic problems that were no less important at that time, entrusting the department of criticism in Sovremennik to Dobrolyubov.

Chernyshevsky presented his materialist aesthetics as a system, contrasting it with idealistic systems. Three circumstances forced him to do this: the internal consistency of his own materialist and democratic thought, the systematic nature of Belinsky’s revived legacy, and the logical consistency of Hegelian aesthetics, on which Chernyshevsky’s opponents relied. It was possible to defeat idealism only by creating a concept that could, from a new historical and philosophical point of view, more rationally illuminate all previously posed and new problems that arose.

All of Chernyshevsky’s theoretical constructions unfold as follows: first, he analyzes the prevailing idealistic ideas about the purpose and subject of art, namely the concept of beauty; then he proclaims his thesis “beautiful is life” and analyzes the attacks of idealists on the beautiful in reality and only then, in a certain sequence, positively sets out his theses. At the end of the dissertation, he draws conclusions from what has been said and concisely sets out the essence of the new materialist doctrine of art.

Chernyshevsky comprehensively analyzed the basic formula of idealistic aesthetics: “The beautiful is perfect correspondence, perfect identity of the idea with the image”1. This formula was born in the bosom of idealist aesthetics, mainly the Hegelian school, and follows from the following idealist thesis: the whole world is the embodiment of an absolute idea, the idea in its development goes through a number of stages, the field of spiritual activity is subject to the law of ascent from direct contemplation to pure thinking. According to Hegel, art is the naive stage of contemplation, then comes religion, and the most mature stage of spiritual activity is philosophy. Beauty is the sphere of art; it is the result of the apparent identity of idea and image, their complete coincidence in a separate object. In fact, idealists say, an idea can never be embodied in a separate object, but the illusion itself ennobles the object so much that it looks beautiful. At the next stages of cognition, the idea leaves the concrete image, and for developed thinking there is not illusory beauty, but only authentic truth. For pure thinking there is no beauty; beauty is even humiliating for it. Pure thinking is an idea adequate to itself, not resorting to the help of images of base empiricism in order to appear to the world.

Proclaiming “the beautiful is life,” Chernyshevsky took life in all the boundlessness of its manifestations, in the meaning of the joy of being (“it is better to live than not to live”). He interpreted life in its social and class manifestations. Chernyshevsky showed that peasants and gentlemen have different ideas about beauty. For example, the beauty of a rural girl and a socialite. He was the first to put forward the class principle of understanding the problem of beauty.

Chernyshevsky clearly sympathizes with those ideas about beauty that were developed by the naive consciousness of the working peasantry, but complements them with ideas about the “mind and heart” that take shape in the enlightened consciousness of leaders of the revolutionary democratic trend. As a result of the merger of these two principles, Chernyshevsky’s position on the beautiful received a materialistic and democratic interpretation. Idealists introduced the categories of the sublime, comic, and tragic into their doctrine of beauty. Chernyshevsky also paid great attention to them. In idealistic aesthetics, the concept of the tragic was combined with the concept of fate. Fate appeared in the form of the existing order of things (which corresponded to the concept of a social system), and the subject or hero, active and strong-willed by nature, violated this order, encountered it, suffered and died. But his work, cleared of individual limitations, did not disappear; it entered as a component element into universal life.

In all these positions of idealism, Chernyshevsky brilliantly revealed the protective tendency inherent in them. He refuted the fatalism of the theory tragic fate hero not only as a revolutionary democrat, but also as a dialectician, a consistent realist. He also proceeded from the fact that the tragic is connected with the struggle of the hero and the environment. “Is this struggle always tragic?” Chernyshevsky asked and answered: “Not at all; sometimes tragic, sometimes not tragic, as it happens.”1 There is no fatalistic effect of fate, but only a concatenation of causes and a relationship of forces. If the hero realizes that he is right, then even a difficult struggle is not suffering, but pleasure. Such a struggle is only dramatic. And if you take the necessary precautions, then this struggle almost always ends happily. This statement conveys the optimism of a true revolutionary fighter.

Chernyshevsky correctly pointed out that “the sphere of art should not be limited to the beautiful”, that “what is generally interesting in life is the content of art”1. Idealists clearly confused the formal principle of art - the unity of idea and image as a condition for the perfection of a work - with the content of art.

In addition to the task of reproducing reality, art has another purpose - to provide an “explanation of life”, to be a “textbook of life”. This is the internal property of art itself. The artist cannot, even if he wanted, refuse to pronounce his judgment on the phenomena depicted: “this verdict is expressed in his work.”

The purpose of art is to reproduce reality, to explain it and to judge it. Chernyshevsky not only returned to the ideas of Belinsky, but also significantly enriched materialist aesthetics with requirements arising from the very essence of art and specific conditions literary life 50-60s. Of particular importance was the thesis about the “sentence” over life. This was something new that Chernyshevsky introduced into the problem of tendentiousness in art.

But Chernyshevsky’s dissertation also contains simplifications. He is right about the most important thing: art is secondary, and reality is primary (“above” art). However, Chernyshevsky does not compare images of art with living objects in the sense in which art relates to life as a “second reality.” Chernyshevsky recognizes art only as a medium of information, a commentary, a “surrogate for reality.” Even the expression “textbook of life,” although correct in principle, has a narrow meaning: a reference book of life, an abbreviated summary of it. In those cases where Chernyshevsky speaks of typification, generalization in art, he recognizes the primacy and superiority of the “typification” inherent in spontaneous life itself, and leaves to art only a judgment, a verdict over reality. But this quality generally follows from a person’s ability to judge everything around him. Where is the special form of judgment in art? Chernyshevsky does not talk about naked tendentiousness, but he also does not talk about the fact that art influences a person through its images and the general tone and pathos of the work. The correct idea about the objectivity of beauty and the typical is simplified by Chernyshevsky, since he belittles the importance of typification, the identification in the chaos of accidents of what is natural and necessary. He also underestimated the role of creative imagination and artistic form in art.

In 1854. Thanks to the courage of his statements, the critic immediately became the center of attention.

Ideas of the “natural school” in the works of Chernyshevsky

In his ideas, the writer followed the founder of the “natural school”. The critic believed that a writer is obliged to reveal the life of the oppressed and social contradictions with the utmost truth.
Reviewing the work “Poverty is not a vice” - a comedy work, he condemned the author for deliberately “lightening” the ending and trying to justify the life of a merchant.

"Critical Enlightenment" by the author

In his work “On Sincerity in Criticism” (1954), Chernyshevsky most fully revealed his professional credo. Here the critic talks about the need to disseminate ideas in the mass consciousness that will lead to an understanding of the social and aesthetic significance of works. In other words, the author focuses on the educational potential of criticism. Any critic is obliged to use clear and accessible judgments, since he performs the function of a moral mentor. These postulates were subsequently successfully implemented by the critic's followers.

The work “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” and the idea of ​​​​the socially productive function of art.

The ideas of the master's work “Aesthetic relations of art to reality,” which Chernyshevsky prepared in 1855, were supported by the radical democratic camp, and the work actually became its program document. The purpose of the work was to criticize the postulates of Hegelianism, which were developed by Belinsky in domestic criticism. Avoiding the idea of ​​the transcendental nature of art, the writer insisted on a “materialistic” interpretation of it. Art, being in juxtaposition with empirics, is only capable of reproducing objectively existing beauty with varying degrees of success.

It provides an opportunity to experience beauty “for those people who did not have the opportunity to actually enjoy it.” At the same time, art is intended not only to reproduce reality, but also to explain and evaluate it.
In this work, the author for the first time substantiates his theory - assessing art from the standpoint of its social effectiveness. In addition, it predetermined Chernyshevsky’s critical method, which always placed the plot component of a work above its artistic specificity.

Chernyshevsky about Pushkin

The critic in his works invariably looked for a connection between literature itself and the literary and artistic life by which it was conditioned. In a series of works devoted to poems, he turned to the reconstruction of the socio-political position of the poet, based on his personal archive, while the author does not pay too much attention to literary criticism itself. The critic points out Pushkin's internal opposition. At the same time, the writer points out his passivity and detachment, explaining this, nevertheless, by the atmosphere of the Nicholas era.

Chernyshevsky and the first experience of compiling the history of Russian criticism

The first experience of large-scale reflection on the history of Russian criticism was “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature,” created by the author in 1855-1856. In this work

• the writer speaks positively about Nadezhdin as a convinced anti-romanticist and N. Polevoy as an accomplished democrat;
• according to Chernyshevsky, it was Belinsky who pointed out the true path of the formation of Russian literature;
• following him, he notes that the main condition for literary development is a critical reflection of reality, and cites creativity as a model

Considering him as the most “socially effective” writer, the critic places him much higher than the works of A. Pushkin. However, already in 1957, after the publication of “Provincial Sketches,” Shchedrin managed, according to Chernyshevsky, to surpass Gogol. It is he who, in the eyes of the critic, becomes the main Russian accuser.

Criticism of liberal ideology

Chernyshevsky often criticized the ideology of the 1840s, noting that critical reflection of reality, not supported by specific actions, is not a sufficient means. In his work “Russian man on rendez-vous” (1858), which the author dedicated to the analysis of Turgenev’s “Asia,” he compared the main character of the story with Agarin and Rudin from the poem “Sasha” by Nekrasov. Despite their high morality, the author believed, they lacked the determination to take specific actions, but the critic is inclined to blame the vices of reality for this, and not the characters themselves.

Criticism of Tolstoy

Chernyshevsky’s reviews of Tolstoy’s “War Stories” and “Childhood and Adolescence” became almost the author’s only attempt to comprehend not the social effectiveness of the work, but its artistic specificity. The critic forgives Tolstoy for the lack of topicality in his works for the “dialectics of the soul” - the ability to teach the reader human psychology in all the contradictions of its formation.
Withdrawal from literary activity
At the turn of the 1850s-60s, Chernyshevsky moved away from literary criticism and turned to issues of politics, philosophy and economics.

• in 1862 he was arrested for his connection with Herzen and for the proclamation “I bow to the lordly peasants from their well-wishers...”;
• two years later, by court decision, he was sent to hard labor, where he spent more than twenty years;
• in 1883 he was allowed to move to Astrakhan, and a little later - to the writer’s native Saratov.

Introduction

The relevance of this topic for me lies in the acquisition of new knowledge in the field of journalism, for the further use of this knowledge in professional activities.

The purpose of this study is to study the journalistic activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubova and D.I. Pisareva.

Research objectives

Studying specialized literature to familiarize yourself with the biography and journalistic activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubova; DI. Pisareva.

Collection of information, data analysis, formulation of conclusions on this topic;

Acquiring new knowledge in the field of journalism.

The term "journalism" comes from the Latin word "publicus", which means "public". In the broadest sense of the word, the term “journalism” refers to everything literary works, relating to issues of politics and society. In contrast to fiction, which covers these issues in pictures of life, images of people depicted in works of art, journalism in the narrow sense of the word is called socio-political and scientific texts, dedicated to issues of life of the state and society.

Also, the term journalism, due to the polysemy of this word, is used in the following meanings:

In a broader sense - all journalism;

In a narrower sense - some forms or genres of journalism;

It is necessary to distinguish between concepts journalism And journalism. Journalism can be defined as a special social institution, an integral and relatively independent system, a special cooperation of people connected by a unity of activity. And journalism is, first of all, a creative process. Its essence lies in the process of reflecting the evolving phenomena of life, which is constantly developing under the influence of the needs of social practice. This is a special flow of information that captures socio-political relations in empirical facts and reasoning, in concepts, journalistic images and hypotheses.

Journalism exists as a special kind of literature along with scientific and artistic literature; at present we can already say that it has developed as a special form of creativity, reflection of reality, propaganda, and formation of the consciousness of the masses.

Journalistic creativity appears as a socio-political activity, whose task is not only broad information, ideological education of the reader, listener, viewer, but also their social activation. It is in this way that journalism contributes to the operational regulation of the social mechanism and indicates the shortest path to satisfy an emerging social need.

Journalism is a type of literary (mainly journalistic) socio-political activity that reflects public consciousness and purposefully influences it. Its function is a prompt, in-depth, objective study of public life and influence on the audience. Depending on the genre, purpose, literary intent, and creative style of the author, conceptual or figurative means of expressing thoughts, their combination, and means of logical and emotional influence are used in a journalistic work.

1. Literary-critical and journalistic activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky

Literary-critical activity of Chernyshevsky.

In 1853, Chernyshevsky began his literary, critical and journalistic activities in the Sovremennik magazine, the leading organ of Russian revolutionary democracy. In 1853-1858, Chernyshevsky was the main critic and bibliographer of the magazine and published several dozen articles and reviews on its pages. The most significant works of Chernyshevsky as a critic include the historical and literary cycles “Works of L. Pushkin” (1855) and “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855-1856), which determined the attitude of revolutionary-democratic literature and journalism to the literary heritage of 1820-1840- s and established its historical pedigree (the most significant names here were Gogol and Belinsky), as well as critical analyzes of the works of modern writers: L.N. Tolstoy (“Childhood and adolescence. Op. Count L.N. Tolstoy. War stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy”, 1856), M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (“Provincial Sketches of Shchedrin”, 1857), I.S. Turgenev (“Russian Man”, 1858), N.V. Uspensky (“Isn’t this the beginning of change?”, 1861).

A distinctive feature of Chernyshevsky’s literary critical speeches was that he literary material they primarily examined issues of the socio-political movement in Russia during the period of the first revolutionary situation. Chernyshevsky gave Russian literature examples of social, journalistic criticism addressed to life itself.

Chernyshevsky's social temperament turned out to be so strong that it prompted him to leave literary criticism and turn to journalistic creativity itself. In 1858, when N.A. became established in the editorial office of Sovremennik. Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky handed over to him the critical and bibliographic department of the magazine, and he devoted himself entirely to work in the political department of Sovremennik.

Chernyshevsky’s literary-critical, economic, socio-political speeches in the Sovremennik magazine made him the recognized head of the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia. Meanwhile, a tragic turning point was coming in the fate of this movement: from the middle of 1862, the government of Alexander I, which until then had acted under the sign of an albeit half-hearted liberalization of Russian life, turned back. The era of liberation and reform was replaced by the era of reaction: one of its first harbingers was the suspension of Sovremennik for 8 months in May 1862. On July 7, Chernyshevsky was arrested. After two years of imprisonment in the Peter and Paul Fortress - for two years the Senate fabricated Chernyshevsky’s “case” - Chernyshevsky learned the verdict of the Senate Commission: “For malicious intent to overthrow the existing order, for taking measures to indignate and for composing an outrageous appeal to the lordly peasants and submitting it for publication in types of distribution - to deprive all rights of the estate and exile to hard labor in the mines for fourteen years and then settle in Siberia forever.” Alexander II approved the sentence, reducing the term of hard labor by half. Chernyshevsky spent the period from 1864 to 1872 in hard labor, then another 11 years, until 1883, he lived in a settlement in Vilyuisk. In 1883, Chernyshevsky was allowed to return to Russia, although this was not liberation, but a change of place of settlement: from Vilyuysk he was transferred to Astrakhan. Only a few months before his death, in 188!), Chernyshevsky was able to return to his homeland, to Saratov . The second half of Chernyshevsky's life, 27 years of prison and exile, became the time in which HE became an outstanding writer.

Fictional works by N.G. Chernyshevsky are organically connected with his social and journalistic activities.

The writer's first novel is “What to do?” - was created in the solitary confinement of the Alekseevsky ravelin, where Chernyshevsky was placed after his arrest. The time it took to complete the work is surprising: only four months. The novel began on December 4, 1802, and was completed on April 14, 1863. Chernyshevsky was in a hurry, he needed to make public the demolition of his creation. The novel contains a complex of ideas, the knowledge of which the writer considered mandatory for young people of the 60s, “The whole sum of the philosophy of the novel, the whole meaning of its figures embraces a certain encyclopedia of ethical and social principles indicating certain rules of life,” wrote the famous Soviet researcher of Chernyshevsky’s work A.P. Skaftymov “What to do?” - a work that also has a frankly didactic purpose. Chernyshevsky's task is to tell the young reader about the new human type so that an ordinary healthy person can be re-educated in the process of reading. This teaching goal determined the type of novel, its composition, features of character construction, and the author’s position. “I don’t have a single artistic talent...” the writer said in the preface. “All the merits of the story are given to it only by its truth.” Chernyshevsky’s words about his lack of artistic talent should not be taken in the literal and unambiguous sense. This statement by the author of the novel is not without irony regarding traditional, romantic ideas about artistic talent. The “serious” meaning of this statement is that the author notes in his fictional method something more than traditional artistry. The narrative, Chernyshevsky emphasizes, is organized by an idea, and an idea, in his opinion, a true one. This determines the main value of the novel.

Author of “What to do?” conducts a direct conversation with the reader. The direct dialogue between the author and the reader concerns the most pressing issues of our time. The journalistic orientation of the novel is exposed and emphasized by Chernyshevsky. The essence of his method is to teach the business; the novelistic “finishing” is needed only because it makes it easier to assimilate the truth.

Offering the public a new complex of human morality, Chernyshevsky constantly activates the attention of “his” reader, primarily by arguing with the image of the “insightful reader” he created. A “discerning reader” is a person with a government mindset, a philistine in terms of worldview. Explaining his bewilderments and objections, the author polemicizes with his possible opponents: the novel, after its release, was inevitably bound to cause sharp disagreements. Conversations with the “insightful reader” made it possible for Chernyshevsky to predict and deflect the alleged charges. In these episodes of the novel, the author showed himself to be a brilliant artist-thinker, exceptionally skilled in irony.

Chernyshevsky represents diarrhea, which is just emerging as already victorious. “New people” are programmed as winners, they are “doomed” to happiness. This feature of the writer’s creative method, manifested in “What is to be done?”, allows us to characterize the novel as a utopian novel. Before Chernyshevsky, “utopia” was most often a work of fantastic content. But at the same time, Chernyshevsky also shows the real picture of the world.